Armed men beat up four traffic enforcers

[tsupermario]

The comission of the crime is what defines the act. Intentions only come into play when determining the seriousness and appropriate punishment.

imho its the other way around. the act committed defines the crime done and one of the possible elements of a crime is the intent of the perpetrator. in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

The act itself is assault and battery. The obviously planned nature of the assault puts it under pre-meditated assault, which carries a heavier fine than merely aggravated assault, which would occur only if the assailant was taunted or pushed into fighting.

the assault i was thinking carries a more serious penalty than just a fine. in fact, it can carry a penalty of imprisonment and it can go as high as 6 years if i i'm not mistaken.

Don't let your distaste or hatred of the victim color your judgement.

hehe it didn't. sabi ko nga lang baka karma

Like I said, if somebody shot someone for any real or imagined offense, however slight... like, oh say... cutting them off in traffic... would you empathize with the shooter? Or how about if they shot him and took his car? Surely taking the car is just revenge for him denting your own...

would i empathize with the shooter? of course not. why should i? he just committed 2 crimes right there.

[Galactus]

imho its the other way around. the act committed defines the crime done and one of the possible elements of a crime is the intent of the perpetrator. in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

That is incorrect.

As Niky said, the mere commission of a crime is all that is needed for a case to prosper, the intent will only be a mitigating circumstance as to the gravity of the offense. In this particular case (based on the news item), the primary charge would be serious physical injuries. Secondary charges na lang ang grave threats (may baril kasi, and it would be logical to presume na they used it to threaten their lives) and robbery.

But it could be upgraded to attempted/frustrated homicide, depending on the facts (which have yet to be ascertained).

Simply put, kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery.

[Bogeyman]

in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

If there was no intent to gain, why were the communications equipment taken, which were paid for by our taxes? And the victims' personal effects, why were they taken as well? If they wanted to prevent the victims from calling for backup, they could have just incapacitated them. After all, they managed to tie one of them up.

Does taking someone's wallet really help in the crusade against corruption?

[tsupermario]

before anybody here gets the wrong idea, lemme just clear things up: i'm not defending the acts of those vigilantes. heck they they be punished for what they did. i agree that taking the law into your own hands does not promote the common good. mine is only an opinion on the possible criminal liabilities of those offenders since there was a confusion as to the charges that may be bought against them.

If there was no intent to gain, why were the communications equipment taken, which were paid for by our taxes? And the victims' personal effects, why were they taken as well? If they wanted to prevent the victims from calling for backup, they could have just incapacitated them. After all, they managed to tie one of them up.

Does taking someone's wallet really help in the crusade against corruption?

the 1st two questions is probly answered by your 3rd sentence, yet i can only speculate on the wisdom of their actions, kaya who knows? if there was indeed intent to gain, it is the evidence that will shed light. or the perpetrators themselves if they ever get caught.

That is incorrect.

As Niky said, the mere commission of a crime is all that is needed for a case to prosper, the intent will only be a mitigating circumstance as to the gravity of the offense. In this particular case (based on the news item), the primary charge would be serious physical injuries. Secondary charges na lang ang grave threats (may baril kasi, and it would be logical to presume na they used it to threaten their lives) and robbery.

But it could be upgraded to attempted/frustrated homicide, depending on the facts (which have yet to be ascertained).

Simply put, kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery.

it's like this. let say you are the prosecutor. before you charge somebody with a crime, you have to know all the acts that was committed by the offender. it is only after knowing these acts that you can prescribe the proper crime which you can charge against the offender. why? because it is those acts that will constitute the basis of the charge.

in this case IMHO, there are two possible crimes - direct assault and robbery. i'm not saying also that it's one or the other because it can be both.

physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault. for homicide or murder to prosper there must be evidence of intent to kill. you would notice that intent is a crucial element in these crimes. what distinguishes physical injuries from homicide/murder is intent to kill. likewise in robbery, intent is an element. therefore your assertion that "kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery" without intent to gain is no robbery, but it can be something else.

[midinite]

just a couple of questions:

1. did they beat up the female officer? diba medyo foul if they did?

2. someone mentioned the officers were unarmed. so diba di patas ang laban? just a question.

3. okay. wild wild east street justice. I have seen that when I lived in phnom penh but here is the question does the punishment fit the crime? even in vigilantism diba an eye for an eye. kasi you have to look at it na hindi an eye for a house diba ( just an exageration but to stress the point). unless the officers really went out of their way and did something really bad to the maulers benefactor? what must've they done. Is it things gettiing out of proportion like someone shooting another for a traffic violation. just a question..any why were they singled out. dami din sa makati as mentioned...

[odell]

kahit na traffic enforcers yan.. crime padin un...

[Galactus]

in this case IMHO, there are two possible crimes - direct assault and robbery. i'm not saying also that it's one or the other because it can be both.

physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault. for homicide or murder to prosper there must be evidence of intent to kill. you would notice that intent is a crucial element in these crimes. what distinguishes physical injuries from homicide/murder is intent to kill. likewise in robbery, intent is an element. therefore your assertion that "kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery" without intent to gain is no robbery, but it can be something else.

Sorry, but homicide is different from murder. Murder is present mainly when it is premeditated, (i.e. intent); there is treachery; in consideration of a reward (for killing) and there is use of superior force.

Homicide is when you kill somebody WITHOUT the requirements enumerated above. For example, you intended to rob someone (but with no intention of killing), but the victim fought back leaving you no recourse but to kill him. Or when you accidentally kill a pedestrian or another motorist in a traffic incident. Intent or premeditation is not present in these 2 cases

[sirmykel]

karma yan kung me masama silang nagawa before

nakakaawa naman kung wala...

[tsupermario]

Sorry, but homicide is different from murder. Murder is present mainly when it is premeditated, (i.e. intent); there is treachery; in consideration of a reward (for killing) and there is use of superior force.

Homicide is when you kill somebody WITHOUT the requirements enumerated above.

did i say that homicide and murder are the same thing? if i made that impression to you then i guess i'm sorry. but please have more than a cursory understanding on the legal concepts you are invoking because it doesn't really help. for instance, in your example:

you intended to rob someone (but with no intention of killing), but the victim fought back leaving you no recourse but to kill him.

this is not even homicide. this is robbery with homicide. also, if you still can't accept the fact that intent to gain is an element of robbery, our penal code defines robbery as:

Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

if you read the provision that defines robbery with violence or intimidation against persons before, then you would realize the error of your example. and btw as regards to your previous statement:

In this particular case (based on the news item), the primary charge would be serious physical injuries. Secondary charges na lang ang grave threats (may baril kasi, and it would be logical to presume na they used it to threaten their lives) and robbery.

if you read more about the law on robbery, it should tell you that in robbery with violence or intimidation against persons, grave threats are INHERENT. and like homicide, physical injuries are INCLUDED in the provision that DEFINES the crime of robbery with violence or intimidation against persons.

like i said, please take caution and have more than a cursory reading before invoking legal concepts.

[niky]

Here's the problem, if the intent was not gain, then where are the radios and cellphones?

To clarify: If the intent was to prevent their calling for backup, the radios would have been taken and then dumped a few meters from the scene. Much like a car used for a getaway. If it is found abandoned beyond the crime scene, then there is no robbery with regards to the car, but if items are missing, then that can be considered robbery. The non-return of the radios signifies an implied intent to gain, and that is possibly how the judge would see it. Even if the defendant denies intent, if they can't produce the items or point out where they dumped them, they're screwed.

Of course, the other charges would be more serious.

I don't think this would fall under homicide, although a local prosecutor would likely try to throw in attempted homicide to trump up the charges, since there was a firearm involved, then let the defense bargain down from there.

Peace nalang, pare... it seems I was the one who got a little too emotional up there...